1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s 202 square meters in Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) On March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of donation on the same day. 2) The Defendant constructed and used part of the mosium 2,400 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “mosium”). As of the date of closing the argument in the instant case, part of the above mosium was connected to each point of the 4,5,6,7, and 4 of the land in the instant case, which is owned by the Plaintiff and owned by the Plaintiff, on the ground of 11 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “part of the instant land in dispute”).

(2) Of the destroyed and destroyed ground of this case, only the part on the ground of the dispute of this case among the destroyed and destroyed ground of this case refers to only the part on the ground of this case's land (the ground of recognition). [This case's structure] No dispute exists, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 12, Eul's evidence Nos. 3-2 or video, and the result of the cadastral survey conducted by the Korea Land Information Corporation pursuant to the commission of this court

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to remove the structure of the dispute in this case to the plaintiff and deliver the part of the dispute in this case to the plaintiff.

2. In light of the following facts, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to the defendant's defense Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1, Eul evidence Nos. 5-2, testimony of witness E and witness Eul's testimony, and witness F's testimony, the defendant has a legitimate right to possess the land in the dispute of this case, since it is still used and profits from the part of the dispute of this case with the plaintiff's consent to use, and it is difficult to view that the period sufficient to use and profits from the dispute of this case has expired,

Even if the plaintiff is the defendant, the dispute in this case is against the defendant.